Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[VirOptimus]

Thats an amazing admission. You disagree with what I say even though you havent read it. wow.

So here is a short and concise breakdown of what I said.

The Royal College of General Practitioners agrees with what I have said that gender affirming treatment has no scientific basis. Are they crackpots.

As that is not what they said, will you admit that you are wrong or will you double down in your bigoted fail?

 

[SilverBear]

So don't the following quotes match those claims

The most concerning effects of the tactics of social punishment Trans activists are using is on the mental health and medical professionals
Gender Dysphoria and Surgical Abuse – Quadrant Online

What do you think the tactic of social punishment involves? Would that be to publically destroy people’s reputation and cause them to lose their jobs like in the following example?

evidence that it's happening? none.

Lies are often spread about people who question Tran’s activism. The most well-known example is the firing of Dr. Ken Zucker from CAMH (Canadian public health). In Zucker’s case this resulted in a lawsuit that he won.
So Trans activists spread lies about him that got him sacked for not supporting trans ideology. Doesn’t this support my claim that any professional who tries to pursue an opposing line of treatment risks losing their job? I’d say this fits exactly.

except it is a matter of public record that CAMH initiated an external review of the practices of the clinic Zucker was in charge of. "The review found the clinic is "an insular entity with an approach dissimilar from other clinics and described it as being out of step with current best practices" and found that subordinates under Zucker were engaging in illegal therapies with youths. Ref: "External review of the Gender Identity Clinic of the child, youth and family services in the underserved populations program at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health". CAMH. 2015-11-26.

Zucker sued CAMH and they settled out of court. CAMH says it stands behind its decision

What about this one

Dr Tania Marshall has received harassment and death threats for expressing concerns over rapid onset cases of gender dysphoria.

Does a death threat count as Tran’s activists hunting down someone for an opposing view and makes a person scared about speaking up.

Marshall was asked about the claimed death threats when she was speaking at The Neurodiversity Academy in August on 2019. Specifically she was asked what response had come from law enforcement. She indicated she never reported the death threats saying it just wasn't necessary.
Yeah that is a healthy response to death threats

Think about this and you dont need a citation.

yes it does.

If transgender affirming treatments are being promoted as the way to treat anyone who has trans feelings (if its put into law)

on what planet is this happening?

then doctors have to follow this even if they disagree. Do you think that there will be doctors who disagree with trans affirming treatments. So any doctor that does not follow that treatment is at risk of being reprimanded and losing their job. Its self evident.

what treatments are doctors being forced to engage in?

When you consider that we are now seeing that trans affirming treatments like puberty blockers and cross sex hormones have unknown risks

any treatment has potential and unknown risks. This is where informed consent comes in.

or that surgery does not necessarily help

Any surgeon will tell you there is no guarantee of success. Again informed consent

 

[stevevw]

Saying that something may not be reversible is not the same thing as saying there is no scientific basis.

The quote on puberty blockers comes from the NHS which is a seperate point where they had reversed their advice and about puberty blockers being reversible. The fact they said
the information is more accurate and fact-based, there is less ideology
tells you that the old claims had no scientific basis and were based on ideology and that now their new advice is more accurate and fact based. That says to me that they were making claims that had no scientific basis. But they changed a lot of their language on gender affirmation treatments because they realised there was little science behind them if you read their article.

What your completely missing is that the RCGP and the NHS and other respected sources are saying that gender affirming treatments are being pushed when the science is unknown and even disputes this treatment. Its not just about puberty blockers but the who treatment regime being pushed and thats the ideology. An idea or belief is being pushed like some religion when there is risks to children.

I thought it was quite clear.

I said that nothing that you provided in that post shows there's no evidence to support the benefit that trans people get from it.

Possibly because that was not my intention or point. I didnt post the link to show the benefits of gender transtioning treatment but rather instead the lack of evidence and unknown risks associated with it.

 

[stevevw]

What a surprise, Stevevw misquote and misunderstand, again.

I knew it would be pointless reading the post.

Actually it was the other way around. I just pointed that out. You should know it was about my post to you. But then you didnt read it did you. That only shows that you are happy to ride off the back of someone else when opposing my points even when you dont even know what the content is about. So long as they are undermining me you will agree with them lol.

Your trying to interpret someone elses interpretation (kylie's) of a conversation between you and me when you should have been interpreting and understanding it yourself in the first. BUt you didnt bother and now your happy to believe someone esles perspective and not your own first hand one.

Like I said your method of debate is illogical and full of fallacies about undermining credibility by association and identity politics. Whites and religious people will always be wrong, anyone who opposes your view is ignorant. Your bias is showing again lol.

Can't you see this. Whenever you come into debates you dont offer any reasoning or engagement. Just dismissals and swipes at people. You have been saying this for years now and still you dont enegage. This will go on forever and there is absolutely no point to it except non-constructive critizism. At least other people engage and have something constructive to say and debate about.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually it was the other way around. I just pointed that out. You should know it was about my post to you. But then you didnt read it did you. That only shows that you are happy to ride off the back of someone else when opposing my points even when you dont even know what the content is about. So long as they are undermining me you will agree with them lol.

Your trying to interpret someone elses interpretation (kylie's) of a conversation between you and me when you should have been interpreting and understanding it yourself in the first. BUt you didnt bother and now your happy to believe someone esles perspective and not your own first hand one.

Like I said your method of debate is illogical and full of fallacies about undermining credibility by association and identity politics. Whites and religious people will always be wrong, anyone who opposes your view is ignorant. Your bias is showing again lol.

Can't you see this. Whenever you come into debates you dont offer any reasoning or engagement. Just dismissals and swipes at people. You have been saying this for years now and still you dont enegage. This will go on forever and there is absolutely no point to it except non-constructive critizism. At least other people engage and have something constructive to say and debate about.

Tl; dr.

 

[Rajni]

That is not the case. I have mainly linked reptable sources. tell how are these crackpots IE

The National Health Service (England). This is the government run health service who are responsible for the care of the public in England. They have no bias and as a government have to support the rights of all. Yet they agree with the so called crackpots and myself that trans ideology is unscientific. Many gender affirming clinics claim puberty blockers are harmless and reversible but now the NHS has realised that this is false and have changed their advice on a number of claims made by transgender ideology.

GONE is the claim that puberty blockers are considered to be fully reversible:
The new updated section on the NHS website is an improvement on older versions, the information is more accurate and fact-based, there is less ideology and more care is taken with language.
Are puberty blockers reversible? The NHS no longer says so

The NSH no longer supports the ideology that hormone therapy is safe and now acknowledge what I have said that there are unknown risks associated with transgender affirming treatments. But gender clinics still refer many young people to hormone treatments.

It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.”
Are puberty blockers reversible? The NHS no longer says so

What about the Royal College of General Practitioners, are they also crackpots because they agree with what I have said as well. Here is the RCGP Position statement on transgender ideology:

“There is a significant lack of robust, comprehensive evidence around the outcomes, side effects and unintended consequences of such treatments for people with gender dysphoria, particularly children and young people, which prevents GPs from helping patients and their families in making an informed decision.”

“The promotion and funding of independent research into the effects of various forms of interventions (including ‘wait and see’ policies) for gender dysphoria is urgently needed, to ensure there is a robust evidence base which GPs and other healthcare professionals can rely upon when advising patients and their families. There are currently significant gaps in evidence for nearly all aspects of clinical management of gender dysphoria in youth. Urgent investment in research on the impacts of treatments for children and young people is needed.”
Are puberty blockers reversible? The NHS no longer says so

This is what I have been sayibng all along. Transgender affirming treatments that push children into taking puberty blockers and young teens into taking cross sex hormones has unknown risks and in fact some research shows that it affects a childs developing brain and bones permantely let alone the fact that kids are made permantely sterile and the risks of cancer. Yet trans activists still want to push this treatment and claim they care for children. Who are the crackpots then. I would much rarther believe someone like the RCGP than someone who makes unsupported claims.

Thank you for this info.
It's not rocket science to see that screwing around with developing bodies would be unhealthy.

 

[stevevw]

Thank you for this info.
It's not rocket science to see that screwing around with developing bodies would be unhealthy.

Thats OK.

 

[Kylie]

The quote on puberty blockers comes from the NHS which is a seperate point where they had reversed their advice and about puberty blockers being reversible. The fact they said
the information is more accurate and fact-based, there is less ideology
tells you that the old claims had no scientific basis and were based on ideology and that now their new advice is more accurate and fact based. That says to me that they were making claims that had no scientific basis. But they changed a lot of their language on gender affirmation treatments because they realised there was little science behind them if you read their article.

What your completely missing is that the RCGP and the NHS and other respected sources are saying that gender affirming treatments are being pushed when the science is unknown and even disputes this treatment. Its not just about puberty blockers but the who treatment regime being pushed and thats the ideology. An idea or belief is being pushed like some religion when there is risks to children.

Possibly because that was not my intention or point. I didnt post the link to show the benefits of gender transtioning treatment but rather instead the lack of evidence and unknown risks associated with it.

Say what you will, you're still just trying to find excuses to justify not giving trans people the treatment they want.

 

[stevevw]

Say what you will, you're still just trying to find excuses to justify not giving trans people the treatment they want.

Like I said if the science supported whatever treatment and showed it would help those experiencing gender dyphoria then I am all for that. What I am against as having worked in Child Protection and Safty and various Community and Human services positions is the unsupported claims of some of these treatments in the name of care and rights. That is more about the adults involved in pushing their ideology because that helps them confirm their own insecurities about the ideology and is more about politics than care.

This is the big issue we are facing as a society at the moment whether the best best option for treatment is changing the body or changing the mind. On the one side there are those who say that gender affirming treatments that change the body through chemical and surgical treatments is best.

But there are those who say that there are other psychosocial issues at play that are not or not allowed to be investigated to see if they make a difference in helping someone align their mindset to their bodies. That changing a perfectly healthy body is not the answer as it will still leave a person with the same issues that caused them to feel incongruent with their body in the first place.

The science is mostly unknown for gender affirming treatments and in some cases shows that it can cause irrepairable damage. Stopping or stunting a natural development phase for children and young people seems a gross violation of the natural developing person. Especially at a crucial time where the development of other aspects such as the brain can also be stopped or stunted. Cutting off healthy body parts and trying to mimic nature through artifically creating body parts seems like playing God and something a person may never get use to and accept. That is why the longer term studies show an even higher rate of mental ilness and suicide than before the treatment.

At the very least these treatments are a risk of real harm and should not be automatically used as the first treatmnet option. But at the moment they are by a growing number of gender clinics and even being supported by rights groups which seems irrational considering the evidence. Thankfully some like the NHS and the RCGP are realizing the seriousness of this issue and adjusting their advice accordingly. All I am saying is lets do the science and find out before we jump into an ideology that has little science to support it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Like I said if the science supported whatever treatment and showed it would help those experiencing gender dyphoria then I am all for that. What I am against as having worked in Child Protection and Safty and various Community and Human services positions is the unsupported claims of some of these treatments in the name of care and rights. That is more about the adults involved in pushing their ideology because that helps them confirm their own insecurities about the ideology and is more about politics than care.

This is the big issue we are facing as a society at the moment whether the best best option for treatment is changing the body or changing the mind. On the one side there are those who say that gender affirming treatments that change the body through chemical and surgical treatments is best.

But there are those who say that there are other psychosocial issues at play that are not or not allowed to be investigated to see if they make a difference in helping someone align their mindset to their bodies. That changing a perfectly healthy body is not the answer as it will still leave a person with the same issues that caused them to feel incongruent with their body in the first place.

The science is mostly unknown for gender affirming treatments and in some cases shows that it can cause irrepairable damage. Stopping or stunting a natural development phase for children and young people seems a gross violation of the natural developing person. Especially at a crucial time where the development of other aspects such as the brain can also be stopped or stunted. Cutting off healthy body parts and trying to mimic nature through artifically creating body parts seems like playing God and something a person may never get use to and accept. That is why the longer term studies show an even higher rate of mental ilness and suicide than before the treatment.

At the very least these treatments are a risk of real harm and should not be automatically used as the first treatmnet option. But at the moment they are by a growing number of gender clinics and even being supported by rights groups which seems irrational considering the evidence. Thankfully some like the NHS and the RCGP are realizing the seriousness of this issue and adjusting their advice accordingly. All I am saying is lets do the science and find out before we jump into an ideology that has little science to support it.

What are your view on LGBTQ rights?

 

[stevevw]

What are your view on LGBTQ rights?

Like anyone they have the same rights to equal treatment and opportunities in society.

 

[Kylie]

Like I said if the science supported whatever treatment and showed it would help those experiencing gender dyphoria then I am all for that.

So you're just saying that we should deny trans people the treatments they are asking for because you don't think the science supports it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Like anyone they have the same rights to equal treatment and opportunities in society.

Meaning?

 

[stevevw]

So you're just saying that we should deny trans people the treatments they are asking for because you don't think the science supports it.

No I am saying we should not recommend treatments to children that have unknown risks because they have not been tested properly or show unsafe and harmful risks.

 

[stevevw]

Meaning?

Meaning to be free from descrimination on the basis of belief, sex, race, gender ect.

 

[Kylie]

No I am saying we should not recommend treatments to children that have unknown risks because they have not been tested properly or show unsafe and harmful risks.

And are kids being given hormone therapies? Because as far as I knew, hormonal differences between the biological sexes doesn't kick in until puberty.

Besides, if a patient wants to take a particular treatment, even if they are told the risks, isn't it their choice?

 

[VirOptimus]

Meaning to be free from descrimination on the basis of belief, sex, race, gender ect.

And positive rights like marriage etc?

 

[stevevw]

And are kids being given hormone therapies? Because as far as I knew, hormonal differences between the biological sexes doesn't kick in until puberty.

Think about the name 'puberty blocker ‘and then consider what age this treatment is given. To block puberty it would have to be given before puberty around the age of 12 years but some are now pushing for as early as 10 years. Cross sex hormones are given at around 16 years and most kids who go on puberty blockers progress onto cross sex hormones.

Besides, if a patient wants to take a particular treatment, even if they are told the risks, isn't it their choice?

No, children cannot understand the risk at the age of 10, 12 or 16 years. The law deems they are not old enough to vote, smoke or drink alcohol so why should they be able to determine what is good or not regarding the long term effects of treatments.

Besides research shows that children and especially adolescents brains are still developing. Their prefrontal cortex which helps with rational thinking has not fully developed. This area of the brain helps to understand consequences for decisions and actions. That’s why adolescents engage in risky behaviour as they don’t se the consequences.

Plus even if people do know the effects and they prove to be harmful we don’t as a society just let kids harm themselves under a duty of care. Even when it comes to harmful treatments for adults it’s a mind field. Doctors are reluctant under their Hippocratic Oath and doctors would be damned if they do and damned if they don’t according to activists. There would also be all sorts of ramifications legally in today’s litigation crazy society.

 

[stevevw]

And positive rights like marriage etc?

Yes

 

[Kylie]

Think about the name 'puberty blocker ‘and then consider what age this treatment is given. To block puberty it would have to be given before puberty around the age of 12 years but some are now pushing for as early as 10 years. Cross sex hormones are given at around 16 years and most kids who go on puberty blockers progress onto cross sex hormones.

And that's not giving them hormones that they aren't used to, it's PREVENTING the hormones that come with puberty from changing them against their will.

No, children cannot understand the risk at the age of 10, 12 or 16 years. The law deems they are not old enough to vote, smoke or drink alcohol so why should they be able to determine what is good or not regarding the long term effects of treatments.

Besides research shows that children and especially adolescents brains are still developing. Their prefrontal cortex which helps with rational thinking has not fully developed. This area of the brain helps to understand consequences for decisions and actions. That’s why adolescents engage in risky behaviour as they don’t se the consequences.

Plus even if people do know the effects and they prove to be harmful we don’t as a society just let kids harm themselves under a duty of care. Even when it comes to harmful treatments for adults it’s a mind field. Doctors are reluctant under their Hippocratic Oath and doctors would be damned if they do and damned if they don’t according to activists. There would also be all sorts of ramifications legally in today’s litigation crazy society.

And yet a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant is judged as fit to be a mother.

In any case, it doesn't make much sense to make people wait until after puberty to allow them to have puberty blockers, does it? Makes about as much sense as not letting people wear seatbelts until AFTER they've crashed.